“THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND”

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 116, 14 February 1928, Page 10

“THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND”

Sir. —“Silence gives consent”; and I must anain offer congratulations to your reverend correspondent (A Presbyterian Minister),—thia time for so quietly—dumbly, in fact —acknowledging his literary sin of misquoting me. But, 1 hope be will not deem me unnecessarily censorious if 1 call attention to a certain petulance existing in his remorse. For, though “A Presbyterian Minister,” bv default,■ allows my correaction of his slip-shod statements to Stand, it must be noted that, in his reulies to his Protestant critics, the reverend gentleman allows himself the childish pleasure of referring to the Catholic Church under the contemptuous titles of “Popery” and “religion" of the l’ope.” Ik is true that these unworthy titles are used neatly, as a graceful and careless gesture, while he explains that Protestant rites in their communion service are “hocus pocus,” and while he explains that so little reverence towards the sacramental bread and wine existed amongst lllizubethan Protestants that "it is declared the curate shall have it (what is over) for his own use"! but Presbyterian clergymen are usually so well taught in the matter of English that it is impossible to hold "A Presbyterian Minister" excused on the plea of ignorance herein, . Your correspondent is a good deal worried! I admit, in his controversy with his Protestant friends, but the position is of his own seeking; and surely it is not too much to expect that if he has occasion to refer to Catholic doctrine, or to the Catholic 'Church, he should ’extend tow.i.-cts his Catholic fellow-citizen? the common courtesy of correctly designating their Church! Nothing is gained,—least of all is truth established in men’? heart?—by using opprobrious .epithets or contemptuous malversions of titles. And what worse example of thjs sort of childishness can he found than the blasphemous ridicule “hocus pocus”—an ignorant corruption of the words "Hoc est mens corpus", used by th? priest at the mQjnent of consecration during the holy sacrifice ot the Mass I If "Presbyterian Minister” does not believe that Jesus Christ meant that He said when He used those words “This is Mv body," surely ordinary Christian courtesy ought to prevent his repeating the vulgar ridicule quoted. And apart from the question of good taste, ft is childishly futile for a clergyman qf a small sect, to poke fun at the central and Hlpst saored doctrine of the four hundred or five hundred millions of Catholics in the world.—l am, etc.,. A CATHOLIC LAYMAN. Si r> _Tho average man reading the correspondence in yonr columns on the Church Of Rugland Prayer Book is apt to say “a plague on both yqur houses/ The advocates of this or that side of the question, while wrangling and quoting all manner of authorities to support their views, are singularly unanimous in their neglect of the one authority that should stand above all others, the nominal head of the Church, Jesus Christ. How far baa the Church the right to clgim to he representative of Jesus Christ ? His teaching was not concerned witn ceremony or ritual, with priests, vestments, sacraments, temples, and sacrifice, These are borrowed from Baal and Moloch and other monstrous deities. He fell foul Of the religious teachers of His time, who complained of His indifference fo the?? same matters. He advocated principles of life and conduct, and not only advocated but lived them. , . , The pie? of Jesus was for universal love, for the recognition of God as the common Father and the unity 'of tfie human race, and the practical working towards thaj Olid which He described as the Kingdom of God. The obvious concern of the Church today ja for itself.—-I am, etc.. ' CHRISTIAN. February o. Sir,—Over the signature of "Catholic, But True Anglican,” one would expect to meet with inconsistency. It ?? there. Has he supplied his true name? Have the greater number of other correspondents done so? I trow not. What right has he then to demand from another the publicity he himself avoids? As for “Catholic's, etc,/’ expressed indignation anent the oritigism meted out to the Archbishop of Canterbury op the score of laxity, there has teen no ground for such a charge had.not unbalanced minds among his-own clergy made light of their solemn ordination oath. It is these whom lie may thank for placing one of his years and reputation in the pillory. . , , v - "Catholic, etc./’ appears puzzled by my pseudonym. He prefer? XXX to LXX. They are not,,.identical, 1 will not insult his intelligence by supposing him unacquainted with the Sepenough has been said to justify the statement wi'h which this letter began, et ?eg,—J am, etc.. laXX. P.B,—Since when was it inadmissible to invite a second opinion when faith in our fiwn practitioner ha? been rudely shaken F I have yet to learn. That is al) that has and behold this flutter w the ’ ministerial dovecot 1-w-LXX. February 9.

.Sir,—Ona cannot help, but view with disgust the unseemly wrung e over the Prayer Book revision, and particularly the absolutely uncharitable and unChristian standpoint of “Presbyterian Minister,” Surely one whose eSpecial duty is to upfield and preach a doctrine which baa as ita foundation love, gentleness, and purity, would be expected tp view the misled actions of hie fellows with sorrow rather than anger, amt for a minister his remarks carry little of the nature on B would espept, I myself am a Presbyt<ian, but whatever my opinions, J believe my fellowmen are entitled to theirs, and it would ba a very good-thing if the Presbyterian Assembly disassociated itself with the remark? Of one.of the representatives of the Church, It is a sad thing when a belief, the principle? of which are so simple that a child can understand them, is so complicated with antagonistic doctrines that its follower? wander in a maze looking for light. Surely His Satanic Majesty must Joan hack and survey with - a chuckle the chaos he has caused—l am, etc., ANOTHER LAYMAN. Lower Hutt, February 3. UNEMPLOYMENT Sir, —Permit me to add a few words to the item detailing the Rev. Jasper Calder's statement? on unemployment in Auckland, City missioneys like the Rev. J, Calder, of Auckland, the Rev. Fielden Taylor, of Wellington, and the Rev, Bryan King, of Dunedin, “know their business”—the business of knowing much of the economic pressure of unemployment on the people. Ask any of these and they would likely echo the Rev., Calder’s words, “They do pot want charity. They want work.” Also, 2000 melt “out of work” in Auckland means,' at a low estimate, probably 0()QQ women and children suffering, It also means a large number of women wanting work and unable to get it, Few people, I think, realise how much women peed work, Sympathies always seem to rush out to unemployed men, but what about the unemployed women of this land ? There is an American phrase “Let ns come down to tlibtacßs.” Here is a tindack I acquired spine months ago: A secretary of a big industrial concern of New Zealand (not a Nelson one) wrote me that if of the £3,000,000 sent abroad for goods, £1,000,000 of this was spent (as it might be) in purchasing the same goods of New Zealand make, factories would be. “booming” and going at top, and industry generally would be so stimulated that tinemplovniept would vanish out of the land,’anil there would be, “two jobs for every mau aud woman” in New Zea-

lend. Also, that it is the women ol New Zealand who can bring this about, by giving up tlie purchase of overseas goods, and (though he did not add tliis!) bv giving up their incessant craving for "bargains.” We have, it is true, no “sweated industries” here, but we support those of Germany! This is a very serious subject, worthy of a far abler pen than mine. I profess no business knowledge or ability, but I know much of hard-up women’s needs, and I endorse every word that secretary wrote me. There was a time—about 1919—when labour 'was-scarce. About that' year I was employed by an association of certain industries to ‘.‘write up” the employment they had to offer to women and girls. Scarcity of labour may come to pass again, but it will not be brought about by the exigencies of any revolution, whether of social or of civil war, )ye women have it largely in our own hapds to lessen the lack of work for the men and women "who want work; not charity.” It i? up to us to do this.—l am, etc., GRACE FON. Wakapuaka, February 8.